The American “Case” or “Controversy” Requirement and the Bangladeshi “Aggrieved Person” Rule A Comparative Study

Abstract

Article 102 (2) of the Bangladesh Constitution speaks of an “aggrieved
person” invoking writ jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. The expression 
“aggrieved person” is commonly understood to involve only the issue of locus 
standi. This article argues that besides locus standi, ripeness and mootness may 
also be the forming parts of the expression “aggrieved person”. In this extended 
meaning, the expression “aggrieved person” of Bangladeshi jurisdiction is 
somewhat similar to the Article III “case” or “controversy” requirement of
American jurisdiction. The article thus both interprets and compares “aggrieved
person” with the American “case” or “controversy” requirement. Ripeness and 
mootness when form parts of “aggrieved person”, become law of the
Constitution under Article 102 (2) and not mere rules of practice the Supreme 
Court usually follow in writ jurisdiction. The article thus develops knowledge of 
constitutional law in the context of interpreting “aggrieved person”. The 
knowledge it develops may be utilized by the Bangladesh Supreme Court in 
interpreting “aggrieved person” in a properly constituted case before it. In this 
way, the article may have practical interest and utility besides its academic value. 
Besides the Court, any person interested in constitutional law may also be 
benefited from properly knowing the scope or extent of the expression 
“aggrieved person” of Article 102 (2) of the Bangladesh Constitution.